In this article, the author studies the processes by which consumers’ quality perceptions of a brand in a product category are affected by their experience with the same brand in a different category. The model proposed and estimated explicitly incorporates some of the basic consumer behavior premises of signaling theory of umbrella branding (Montgomery and Wernerfelt 1992; Wernerfelt 1988). The author provides a framework to analyze the impact of marketing mix strategies in one product category on quality perceptions, consumer perceived risk, and consumer choice behavior in a different category. The model is estimated on panel data for two oral hygiene products, toothpaste and toothbrushes, in which a subset of brands share the same brand name across the two product categories. The results show strong support for the consumer premises of the signaling theory of umbrella branding.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AakerDavid A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity.New York: The Free Press.
2.
AakerDavid A. (1996), Building Strong Brands.New York: The Free Press.
3.
AakerDavid A., and KellerK.L. (1990), “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions,”Journal of Marketing, 54(January), 27–41.
4.
AnandPaul (1993), Foundations of Rational Choice Under Risk.Oxford: Clarendon Press.
5.
BouschD.M., and LokenB. (1991), “A Process-Tracing Study of Brand Extension Evaluation,”Journal of Marketing Research, 28(February), 16–28.
6.
DacinPeter A., and SmithDaniel C. (1994), “The Effect of Brand Portfolio Characteristics on Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions,”Journal of Marketing Research, 31(May), 229–42.
7.
ElrodTerry (1988), “Choice Map: Inferring a Product Market Map from Observed Choice Behavior,”Marketing Science, 7(Winter), 21–40.
8.
ErdemTülin (1996), “A Dynamic Analysis of Market Structure Based on Panel Data,”Marketing Science, 15(4), 359–78.
9.
ErdemTülin, and KeaneMichael P. (1996), “Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: Capturing Dynamic Choice Processes in Turbulent Consumer Good Markets,”Marketing Science, 15(1), 1–20.
10.
GewekeJohn, KeaneMichael, and RunkleDavid (1997), “Statistical Inference in the Multinomial Multi-Period Probit Model,”Journal of Econometrics, 80, 125–65.
11.
HannemanMichael (1984), “Discrete/Continuous Models of Consumer Demand,”Econometrica, 52(3), 541–61.
12.
JohnDeborah Roedder, LokenBarbara, and JoinerChristopher (1995), “Spillover Effects of Brand Extensions: Can They Spread to a Firm's Established Products,” Working Paper #9503, Center for Research in Marketing, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota.
13.
KeaneMichael P. (1993), “Simulation Estimation for Panel Data Models with Limited Dependent Variables,” in Handbook of Statistics, MaddalaG.S., RaoC.R., and VinodH.D., eds. New York: Elsevier Science Publishers, 545–71.
14.
KeaneMichael P. (1997), “Modeling Heterogeneity and State Dependence in Consumer Choice Behavior,”Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 15(3), 310–27.
15.
KimByung-Do, and SullivanMary W. (1995), “The Effect of Brand Experience on Extension Choice Probabilities: An Empirical Analysis,” working paper, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.
16.
LermanSteven, and ManskiCharles (1987), “On the Use of Simulated Frequencies to Approximate Choice Probabilities,” in Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications, ManskiC., and McFaddenD., eds. Cambridge: MIT Press.
17.
LokenBarbara, and JohnDeborah Roedder (1993), “Diluting Brand Equity: When Do Brand Extensions Have a Negative Impact?”Journal of Marketing, 57(July), 71–84.
18.
McFaddenDaniel (1974), “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior,” in Frontiers of Econometics, ZarembkaP., ed. New York: Academic Press, 105–42.
19.
McFaddenDaniel (1989), “A Method of Simulated Moments for Estimations of Discrete Response Models Without Numerical Integration,”Econometrica, 57(4), 995–1026.
20.
MontgomeryCynthia A., and WernerfeltBirger (1992), “Risk Reduction and Umbrella Branding,”Journal of Business, 65(1), 31–50.
21.
NelsonPhilip (1970), “Information and Consumer Behavior,”Journal of Political Economy, 78(2), 311–29.
22.
ParkC. Whan, MilbergSandra, and LawsonRobert (1991), “Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency,”Journal of Consumer Research, 18(September), 185–93.
23.
PhillipsL.D., and EdwardsW. (1986), “Conservatism in a Simple Probability Inference Task,”Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(2), 346–54.
24.
RangaswamyArvind, BurkeRaymond, and OliverTerence A. (1993), “Brand Equity and the Extendibility of Brand Names,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10(March), 61–75.
25.
ReddySrinivas K., HolakSusan, and BhatSubodh (1994), “To Extend or Not to Extend: Success Determinants of Line Extensions,”Journal of Marketing Research, 31(May), 243–62.
26.
RobertsJohn H., and UrbanGlen (1988), “Modeling Multiattribute Utility, Risk and Belief Dynamics for New Consumer Durable Brand Choice,”Management Science, 34(February), 167–85.
27.
RobertsonThomas, ZielinskiJoan, and WardScott (1984), Consumer Behavior.Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
28.
WernerfeltBirger (1988), “Umbrella Branding as a Signal of New Product Quality: An Example of Signaling by Posting a Bond,”Rand Journal of Economics, 19(3), 458–66.
